Literalism and Autism

[brewer]

Is Bel stating that the bible is a mythological tale? A fantasy?

Once you attribute some fanciful action to a character (whether they have some historical basis or not) then it becomes difficult to separate any action that might have a basis in reality from fiction. Whether something is literal or non literal becomes a mute point and not worth arguing.

[GrandizerII]

Maybe it would make sense to give an example of an ancient text on non-literal interpretation of myths. This is pretty clear evidence that ancient people were comfortable with non-literal readings.

This is from the Phaedrus, in Wakefield's translation. The title character asks Socrates about a mythical event that was supposed to have happened locally. Then he asks if Socrates believes the myth. Socrates points out that the "experts" don't read it literally -- they give it a euhemerist reading. But then says he doesn't even care whether it's true or not; he reads myths as a way to know more about himself. This was written in about 370 BC.

Phaedrus: Tell me, Socrates, isn’t this or hereabouts the
place from where Boreas is said to have abducted Oreithuia
from the Ilissus?

Socrates: Yes, that’s how the story goes, anyway.

Phaedrus: Well, wasn’t it from here? At any rate, the water
has a pleasant, clean, clear appearance––just right for girls to
play beside.

Socrates: No, this isn’t the place. It’s about two or three
stades* downstream, where one crosses to go towards Agra.*
There’s an altar of Boreas somewhere there.

Phaedrus: I’ve not really noticed it. But tell me, Socrates, by
Zeus:* do you think this story is true?

Socrates: It wouldn’t be odd for me to doubt it as the
experts do. I might give a clever explanation of it, and say
that a gust of wind from the north pushed her from the
nearby rocks while she was playing with Pharmaceia, and
although this caused her death she was said to have been
abducted by Boreas––either from here or from the Areopad
gus,* since there’s another version of the story, that she was
abducted from there, not here. Basically, Phaedrus, although
I find these kinds of interpretations fascinating, they are the
work of someone who is too clever for his own good. He has
to work hard and is rather unfortunate, if only because he
next has to correct the way Centaurs look, and then the
Chimaera, and then there pours down on him a horde of
similar creatures, like the Gorgon and Pegasus and counte
less other extraordinary beasts with all kinds of monstrous
natures.*† If anyone has doubts about these creatures and
wants to use a rough-and-ready kind of ingenuity to force
each of them to conform with probability, he’ll need a lot of
spare time. As for me, I never have time to spend on these
things, and there’s a good reason for this, my friend: I am
still incapable of obeying the Delphic inscription and knowing
myself.* It strikes me as absurd to look into matters that
have nothing to do with me as long as I’m still ignorant in
this respect, so I ignore all these matters and go along with
the traditional views about them. As I said just now, I
investigate myself rather than these things, to see whether I
am in fact a creature of more complexity and savagery
than Typhon, or something tamer and more simple, with a
naturally divine and non-Typhonic nature. But anyway, my
friend, if I may interrupt our conversation, isn’t this the tree
you were taking us to?

Phaedrus: Yes, this is the one.

Socrates: By Hera, what a lovely secluded spot!

The much later "experts" doubted that the accounts literally happened. This doesn't mean the myths weren't originally meant to be taken literally.

[EgoDeath]

But where did he go wrong, he was never this way in the early days.

As far as I can remember, he's always been oddly sympathetic to Christians, attempting to defend them at every turn, for no apparent reason. The thing is, the version of Christianity he's defending isn't as popular as he believes. At least not from what I can gather. I'm going to use the US as an example.

If we assume there are about 247 million adults in the US, that means there are about 185 million Christians in the United States (obviously not including children, who clearly are not making their own decisions about what religion they belong to).

If we take Gallup's word for it that about a quarter of American Christians (24%) believe the Bible is the literal word of god, that puts us at what?

Around 44 million Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of god. That's no majority, but it's certainly no small number of people.

There are also a number of other alarming statistics from Pew about specific beliefs that American Christians hold. Like 76% of Christians actually believing that literal angels and demons are actively influencing the world around them. Like 45% of Christians believing homosexuality should be discouraged. 48% of Christians believe abortion should be illegal, in most cases. 19% of Christians claim to speak in tongues. We can go on and on.

And granted, the whole of Christianity is far greater than just what Americans think. But, outside of America, the picture can actually get a lot worse. Let's not even talk about Christianity in Africa or certain parts of Asia.

The point is, most Christians don't really have this intellectual, "educated" view of Christianity that Belaqua claims to hold. Plenty of people couldn't even recite you a single Bible verse, they just call themselves Christians or Catholics and go to church when their parents are in town. But even that's not the researched, nuanced view that Bel claims to hold. He seems to be very out of touch with what it is that actual Christians believe, and I think this comes from bending over backwards to try his hardest to defend the Bible. In this weird endeavor he's become totally out of touch with reality.

Does Bel's view represent what the average theologian believes about Christ and the Bible? Maybe. Or even early Christians? Maybe. But certainly not the Christians of today, and he fails to recognize that at every turn.

[Belacqua]

The much later "experts" doubted that the accounts literally happened. This doesn't mean the myths weren't originally meant to be taken literally.

That's true. The fact that experts in Plato's time thought that myths were probably non-literal tells us nothing about the original authors of those myths. 

It does tell us that in the 4th century BC, long before the New Testament, and perhaps 100 or 200 years after the stories in Genesis were put together (depending on which expert you read) people found it easy to accept non-literal readings.

[Succubus]

The much later "experts" doubted that the accounts literally happened. This doesn't mean the myths weren't originally meant to be taken literally.

That's true. The fact that experts in Plato's time thought that myths were probably non-literal tells us nothing about the original authors of those myths. 

It does tell us that in the 4th century BC, long before the New Testament, and perhaps 100 or 200 years after the stories in Genesis were put together (depending on which expert you read) people found it easy to accept non-literal readings.

Why did you bother typing this? What does it explain or clarify?

[Belacqua]

But certainly not the Christians of today, and he fails to recognize that at every turn.

I think it's too broad to say "the Christians of today." I've corresponded with living Christians (Acrobat being one of them) who are comfortable with non-literal readings. Maybe "the majority of Christians of today" would be accurate, but I don't care about the majority if what they're thinking happens to be silly.

I don't think that the popularity of an idea necessarily makes it more likely to be true or interesting. I've said this several times before.

[Acrobat]

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Matthew 10:35-27
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." 

Of course the first one is true, its nice. The second one is obviously not true  because...

Both of them are true.

Whatever truth Christ had to share with us, is not something that can casually be accepted, as we continue on with our everyday life, but disruptive, throws a man's entire house into disarray. And if you're not willing to accept that, than it's not really for you. Christ didn't offer his followers a rose garden, but a cross.

[EgoDeath]

But certainly not the Christians of today, and he fails to recognize that at every turn.

I think it's too broad to say "the Christians of today." I've corresponded with living Christians (Acrobat being one of them) who are comfortable with non-literal readings. Maybe "the majority of Christians of today" would be accurate, but I don't care about the majority if what they're thinking happens to be silly.

I don't think that the popularity of an idea necessarily makes it more likely to be true or interesting. I've said this several times before.

So your view is that what the majority of Christians have it wrong?

[The Valkyrie]

Of course the first one is true, its nice. The second one is obviously not true  because...

Both of them are true.

Whatever truth Christ had to share with us, is not something that can casually be accepted, as we continue on with our everyday life, but disruptive, throws a man's entire house into disarray. And if you're not willing to accept that, than it's not really for you. Christ didn't offer his followers a rose garden, but a cross.

Dammit.

I would have been a Christian for a rose garden!

Cheap bloody deities!

[Belacqua]

I think it's too broad to say "the Christians of today." I've corresponded with living Christians (Acrobat being one of them) who are comfortable with non-literal readings. Maybe "the majority of Christians of today" would be accurate, but I don't care about the majority if what they're thinking happens to be silly.

I don't think that the popularity of an idea necessarily makes it more likely to be true or interesting. I've said this several times before.

So your view is that what the majority of Christians have it wrong?

I'm not very aware of what the majority believe. As I say, that's not what interests me. 

If they are sola scriptura literalists, I think they are overly simple.